Full text of "The Law"

See other formats

The Book and Author

When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to
a book, he predicts that it will still be read "a hundred
years from now." The Law, first published as a pamphlet
in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old.
And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read
when another century has passed.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French econo-
mist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing
during the years just before — and immediately following
— the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period
when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism.
As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was
studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it ap-
peared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably
degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen
chose to ignore his logic.

The Law is here presented again because the same
situation exists in America today as in the France of
1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that
were then adopted in France are now sweeping America.
The explanations and arguments then advanced against
socialism by Mr. Bastiat are — word for word — equally
valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.

FREDERIC BASTIAT

The Law

THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION, INC.
E V IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON. NEW YORK 1964

fropttdotf de !•

ItmucBrin • A r

The Translation

This translation of The Law was done by Dean Russell
of The Foundation staff. His objective was an accurate
rendering of Mr. Bastiat's words and ideas into twentieth
century, idiomatic English.

A nineteenth century translation of The Law, made in
1853 in England by an unidentified contemporary of Mr.
Bastiat, was of much value as a check against this trans-
lation. In addition, Dean Russell had his work reviewed
by Bertrand de Jouvenel, the noted French economist,
historian, and author who is also thoroughly familiar with
the English language.

While Mr. de Jouvenel offered many valuable correc-
tions and suggestions, it should be clearly understood that
Dr. Russell bears full responsibility for the translation.

1st Printing
2ncl Printing
3rd Printing
4th Printing
5th Printing

1950 58,675 copies

1956 10,000 copies

1961 12,000 copies

1962 20,000 copies
1964 20,000 copies

:^3^^

The Law

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state
perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned
from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely
contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every
kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself
guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty re-
quires me to call the attention of my fellow -citizens to it.

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This
gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of
life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving,
developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may ac-
complish this, He has provided us with a collection of
marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of
a variety of natural resources. By the application of our
faculties to these natural resources we convert them into
products, and use them. This process is necessary in order
that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individual-
ity, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the
cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from
God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men
to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law ?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the
individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend
his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the
three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of
any one of them is completely dependent upon the pres-
ervation of the other two. For what are our faculties but
the extension of our individuality? ^\nd what is property
but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend — even by force
— his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows
that a group of men have the right to organize and sup-
port a common force to protect these rights constantly.
Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for ex-
isting, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And
the common force that protects this collective right can-
not logically have any other purpose or any other mission
than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an
individual cannot lawfully use force against the person,

liberty, or property of another individual, then the com-
mon force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be
used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of indi-
viduals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases,
contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to
defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say
that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights
of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately
can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does
it not logically follow that the same principle also applies
to the common force that is nothing more than the organ-
ized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than
this: The law is the organization of the natural right of
lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force
for individual forces. And this common force is to do
only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign
over us all.

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that
order would prevail among the people, in thought as well
as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have
the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-
oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable —
whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would under-
stand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all
the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have
any argument with government, provided that his person
was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his
labor were protected against all unjust attack. When suc-
cessful, we would not have to thank the state for our suc-
cess. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no
more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than
would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost.
The state would be felt only by the mvaluable blessings
of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-inter-
vention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their
satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical man-
ner. We would not see poor famihes seeking literary in-
struction before they have bread. We would not see cities
populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural dis-
tricts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great
displacements of capital, labor, and population that are
caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and
precarious by these state-created displacements. And,
furthermore, these acts burden the government with
increased responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its
proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper

functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequen-
tial and debatable matters. The law has gone further than
this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose.
The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It
has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was
supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights
which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed
the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous
who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and
property of others. It has converted plunder into a right,
in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful
defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished?
And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two
entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philan-
thropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspi-
rations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the
unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition
of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be cease-
less, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common
among people. When they can, they wish to live and
prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accu-
sation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable
spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of

it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecu-
tions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and
monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very
nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insup-
pressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires
with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor;
by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural
resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his
wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor
of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain —
and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will
resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.
History shows this quite clearly. And under these condi-
tions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it be-
comes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is
to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal
tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures
of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class
of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanc-
tion and support of a dominating force, this force must
be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists
in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least pos-
sible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of
the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead
of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of in-
justice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the
legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest
of the people, their personal independence by slavery,
their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder.
This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the
law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they
are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for
the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered
classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolution-
ary means — into the making of laws. According to their
degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may
propose one of two entirely different purposes when they
attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to
stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails
among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in
turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder
upon the many, a common practice where the right to
participate in the making of law is limited to a few per-
sons. But then, participation in the making of law be-

comes universal. And then, men seek to balance their
conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of root-
ing out the injustices found in society, they make these
injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain
political power, they establish a system of reprisals against
other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This
objective would demand more enlightenment than they
possess. ) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by
participating in this legal plunder, even though it is
against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice
appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some
for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change
and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law
into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It
would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we
must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience
the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a
certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is
to make them respectable. When law and morality con-
tradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of
either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the
law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it

would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much
the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice
are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong
disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legiti-
mate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have
erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes
them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and
sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the
law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and
monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit
from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these insti-
tutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous inno-
vator, a Utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shat-
ter the foundation upon which society rests."

If you lecture upon morality or upon poHtical science,
there will be found official organizations petitioning the
government in this vein of thought: "That science no
longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free
trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been
the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to
be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and
laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which
are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That,
in government-endowed teaching positions, the profes-
sor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest

degree the respect due to the laws now in force."*
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or
monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever,
it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be men-
tioned without damaging the respect which it inspires?
Still further, morality and political economy must be
taught from the point of view of this law; from the sup-
position that it must be a just law merely because it is
a law.

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is
that it gives an exaggerated importance to political pas-
sions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But,
by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that
has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal
suffrage.

Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau's school of thought — who con-
sider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider
twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with
me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its
strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which
it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objec-
tions may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross
fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in

♦General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6,
1850. ^

France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal,
there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended
system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three per-
sons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they
are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances
the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the
others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for
those who are capable. But there remains this question of
fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane per-
sons, and persons who have committed certain major
crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive
which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the
supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector
or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but
for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most re-
stricted elective system are alike in this respect. They
differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is
not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of
degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and
Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage
arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice for adults
to prevent women and children from voting. Why are
they prevented? Because they are presumed to be inca-

pable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion?
Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the conse-
quences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects
everyone in the entire community; because the people
in the community have a right to demand some safe-
guards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and
existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the
objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a
controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here
that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as
most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and
overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance
if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons,
all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more
than the organized combination of the individual's right
to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the
punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that
we citizens would then argue much about the extent of
the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent
of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good,
the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes
would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right
to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote
would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, every-
one's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear
that, under these circumstances, those who voted could
not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle
has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization,
regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes
property from one person and gives it to another; the
law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — ^whether
farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or come-
dians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every
class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right
to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to
obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove
to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote.
They will say to you:

"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying
the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law
— in privileges and subsidies — to men who are richer
than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of
bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else
uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use
the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the
right to relief, which is the poor man's plunder. To obtain
this right, we also should be voters and legislators in
order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for

our own class, as you have organized Protection on a
grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that
you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel pro-
poses, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us
a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we
wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bar-
gained for themselves!"

And what can you say to answer that argument!

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted
from its true purpose — that it may violate property in-
stead of protecting it — then everyone will want to partici-
pate in making the law, either to protect himself against
plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will
always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There
will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and
the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this,
it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the
French and English legislatures; merely to understand the
issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious per-
version of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and
discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such
proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850].
There is no country in the world where the law is kept
more within its proper domain: the protection of every
person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this,
there appears to be no country in the world where the

social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the
United States, there are two issues — and only two — that
have always endangered the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs.
These arc the only two issues where, contrary to the gen-
eral spirit of the republic of the United States, law has
assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protec-
tive tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime
— a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World — should
be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the
ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at
the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than
this: The law has come ta be an instrument of injustice.
And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United
States — where the proper purpose of the law has been
perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs —
what must be the consequences in Europe, where the per-
version of the law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the
thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Car-
lier, has said: "We must make war against socialism."
According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr.

Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war agamst
plunder."

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are
two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or
swindling — which the penal code defines, anticipates, and
punishes — can be called socialism. It is not this kind of
plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of
society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder
has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The
war against illegal plunder has been fought since the be-
ginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of Feb-
ruary 1848 — long before the appearance even of social-
ism itself — France had provided police, judges, gen-
darmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose
of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this
war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should
always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law de-
fends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries
are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their
acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places
the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gen-
darmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the vic-
tim— when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short,
there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that
Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among
the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to
wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denuncia-
tions— and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite sim-
ply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs
to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does
not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the ex-
pense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot
do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only
an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils
because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be
an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will
spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain
bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that
the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particu-
lar industry; that this procedure enriches the state because
the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to
pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder
into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred.
The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone
at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal
under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite num-
ber of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans
for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies,
encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools,
guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a
right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and
so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their
common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of
doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than
a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to
be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more
false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier
it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong,
begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may
have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to
fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be
exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said:
"The war that we must fight against socialism must be in
harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has
placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law
to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism
itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not
illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, de-

sire to make the law their own weapon. And when once
the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used
against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the
law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and
your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from
entering into the making of laws? You would prevent so-
cialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall
not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues
to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical —
in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and
for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1 . The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder,
universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow
only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the
right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this
system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with
this system since the franchise was made universal. The
newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law
on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by
their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace,
order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my
death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force
of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence
of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which
necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used
for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I
defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without
perverting it and, consequently, turning might against
right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social per-
version that can possibly be imagined. It must be admit-
ted that the true solution — so long searched for in the
area of social relationships — is contained in these simple
words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by
law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using
law (force) to organize any human activity whatever,
whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, in-
dustry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of
any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential
organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine
force being used against the liberty of citizens without
it also being used against justice, and thus acting against
its proper purpose?

*Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that
he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times.
It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just;
it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law
should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive
use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral
self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law
should directly extend welfare, education, and morality
throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat
again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradic-
tion to each other. We must choose between them. A
citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doc-
trine is only the half of my program. You have stopped
at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The
second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word
fraternity from the word voluntary, I cannot possibly
understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without
liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being
legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have
said before, is in human greed; the other is in false
philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly
what I mean by the word plunder,*

Plunder Violates Ownership

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, un-
certain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its
scientific acceptance — as expressing the idea opposite to
that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When
a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who
owns it — without his consent and without compensation,
and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does
not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act
of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed
to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself
commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say
that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the
point of view of society and welfare, this aggression
against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder,
however, the person who receives the benefits is not re-
sponsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility
for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator,
and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive.
I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I
would not at any time — especially now — wish to add an
irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am

♦Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.

believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack
the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am
attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system
which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so inde-
pendent of personal intentions that each of us profits
from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it
without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Plunder

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, social-
ism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer
who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit
or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that
protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically
the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All
that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in
communism because it is complete plunder; and in pro-
tectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups
and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three systems,
socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, conse-
quently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are
not here under question. In fact, I have already said that

*lf the special privilege of government protection against competition —
a monopoly — were granted only to one group in France, the iron
workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that
it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the pro-
tected trades combined into a common cause. They even organize
themselves in such a manner as to appear to represent all persons who
labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by gen-
eralizing it.

legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even
though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the
origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which
claims to accomplish the general welfare by general
plunder.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the
law should not also organize labor, education, and
religion.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Be-
cause it could not organize labor, education, and religion
without destroying justice. We must remember that law
is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of
the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper func-
tions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds
of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They
oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They
violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his prop-
erty. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive;
they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and
lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious;
and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative con-
cept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of
the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously
accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose
of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of
its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent,
force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method
or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed —
then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon
people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their
own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own
initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need
to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all
this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the
people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality,
their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force
that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth im-
posed by force that is not a violation of property. If you
cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must con-
clude that the law cannot organize labor and industry
without organizing injustice.

The Political Approach

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his
office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that
he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of

so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to
be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this
state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and
lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he
should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek
well-being and perfection, would not a condition of jus-
tice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward prog-
ress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible
with individual responsibility? Would not this be in ac-
cord with the concept of individual responsibility which
God has willed in order that mankind may have the
choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting pun-
ishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His
mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrange-
ments— legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy
the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing
that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We
have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even
one of these positive legal actions that does not contain
the principle of plunder?

The Law and Charity

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and
you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills
itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law sup-
plied with milk from a source outside the society. Noth-
ing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one

citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes
have been forced to send it in. If every person draws
from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is
true that the law then plunders nobody. But this proce-
dure does nothing for the persons who have no money.
It does not promote equality of income. The law can be
an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some
persons and gives to other persons. When the law does
this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, sub-
sidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and wel-
fare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free
credit, and public works. You will find that they are
always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

The Law and Education

You say: "There are persons who lack education," and
you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch
of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends
over a society where some persons have knowledge and
others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and
others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has
only t\Vo alternatives: It can permit this transaction of
teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the
use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter
by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers
who are appointed by government to instruct others,
without charge. But in this second case, the law commits
legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

The Law and Morals

You say: *'Here are persons who are lacking in morality
or religion," and you turn to the law. But law is force.
And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is
to use force in the matters of morality and religion?

It would seem that socialists, however self-compla-
cent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder
that results from such systems and such efforts. But what
do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plun-
der from others — and even from themselves — under the
seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and
association. Because we ask so little from the law — only
justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fra-
ternity, unity, organization, and association. The social-
ists brand us with the name individualist.

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only
forced organization, not natural organization. We repudi-
ate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not
free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true
fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does
nothing more than deprive persons of individual respon-
sibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind
under Providence.

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs,
confuses the distinction between government and society.
As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being

done by government, the socialists conclude that we
object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists
say that we are opposed to any education. We object to
a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no
religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality.
Then they say that we are against equality. And so on,
and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of
not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the
state to raise grain.

The Influence of Socialist Writers

How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea
that the law could be made to produce what it does not
contain — the wealth, science, and religion that, in a posi-
' tive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence
of our modern writers on public affairs?

Present-day writers — especially those of the socialist
school of thought — base their various theories upon one
common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts.
People in general — with the exception of the writer him-
self— form the first group. The writer, all alone, forms
the second and most important group. Surely this is the
weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a
human brain!

In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by sup-
posing that people have within themselves no means of
discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume
that people are inert matter, passive particles, motion-

less atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its
own manner of existence. They assume that people are
susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of
another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more
or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.

Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental
affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself — under the
title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder — is
this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this
creative power whose subUme mission is to mold these
scattered materials — persons — into a society.

These socialist writers look upon people in the same
manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gar-
dener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, para-
sols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does
the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into
groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-
corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener
needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape
his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force
that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For
this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws,
and school laws.

The Socialists Wish to Play God

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed
into social combinations. This is so true that, if by
chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success
of these combinations, they will demand that a small por-

tion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The
popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And
one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand
that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district
with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before
he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes
some chemicals — the farmer wastes some seeds and land
— to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener
and his trees, between the inventor and his machine,
between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer
and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks
that there is the same difference between him and man-
kind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth cen-
tury look upon society as an artificial creation of the
legislator's genius. This idea — the fruit of classical edu-
cation— has taken possession of all the intellectuals and
famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and
writers, the relationship between persons and the legisla-
tor appears to be the same as the relationship between
the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recog-
nize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a
principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have
considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They
have thought that persons, under the impulse of these
two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They
assimie that if the legislators left persons free to follow

their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism Jjq-
stead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty
instead of production and exchange.

The Socialists Despise Mankind

According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that
Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and
legislators — the exact opposite inclinations, not only for
their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the
world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators
yearn for good; while mankind advances toward dark-
ness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while man-
kind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted
toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the
true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force
in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of
the human race.

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or
history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in
our country is this idea — the child of classical studies,
the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably
find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiv-
ing life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the
power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that
mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from
this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the
legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says
that behind passive society there is a concealed power

called law or legislator (or called by some other terminol-
ogy that designates some unnamed person or persons of
undisputed influence and authority) which moves, con-
trols, benefits, and improves mankind.

A Defense of Compulsory Labor

Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to
the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV] : *

One of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon
the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism. . . . No one was
permitted to be useless to the state. The law assigned to each
one his work, which was handed down from father to son. No
one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a per-
son change from one job to another. . . . But there was one
task to which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws
and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political regula-
tions of the country was not excused under any circumstances.
Moreover, each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a cer-
tain district Among the good laws, one of the best was that

everyone was trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result
of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and noth-
ing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet.

Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing
from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, hus-
bandry, science — all of these are given to the people by
the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people
have to do is to bow to leadership.

♦Translator's note: The parenthetical expressions and the italicized
words throughout this book were supplied by Mr. Bastiat. All sub-
heads and bracketed material were supplied by the translator.

A Defense of Paternal Goyemment

Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of all
progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the
charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:

How is that possible? These arts were invented by Trisme-
gistus [who was alleged to have been Chancellor to the Egyptian
god Osiris].

And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that
all comes from above:

One of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encour-
age agriculture. ... Just as there were offices established for
the regulation of armies, just so were there offices for the direc-
tion of farm work. . . . The Persian people were inspired with
an overwhelming respect for royal authority.

And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although
exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal respon-
sibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not
have invented the most simple games:

The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been
early cultivated by the kings and settlers who had come from
Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had
learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and chariot

races But the best thing that the Egyptians had taught the

Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be
formed by the law for the public good.

The Idea of Passive Mankind

It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [ad-
vanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators,

economists, and philosophers] held that everything came
to the people from a source outside themselves. As an-
other example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and
instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].

He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This,
plus the fact that he was nurtured in the classical stud-
ies and the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused Fen-
elon to accept the idea that mankind should be passive;
that the misfortunes and the prosperity — vices and vir-
tues— of people are caused by the external influence exer-
cised upon them by the law and the legislators. Thus,
in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men — with all their
interests, faculties, desires, and possessions — ^under the
absolute discretion of the legislator. Whatever the issue
may be, persons do not decide it for themselves; the
prince decides for them. The prince is depicted as the
soul of this shapeless mass of people who form the nation.
In the prince resides the thought, the foresight, all prog-
ress, and the principle of all organization. Thus all
responsibility rests with him.

The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon's Telemachus
proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself
with quoting at random from this celebrated work to
which, in every other respect, I am the first to pay
homage.

Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts

With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classi-
cists, Fenelon ignores the authority of reason and facts

when he attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians,
not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their
kings:

We could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing
rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields,
never fallowed, covered with golden crops every year; meadows
full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit
which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who
made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes
and flutes. "Happy," said Mentor, "is the people governed by a
wise king." . . .

Later, Mentor desired that I observe the contentment and
abundance which covered all Egypt, where twenty-two thousand
cities could be counted. He admired the good police regulations
in the cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor against
the rich; the sound education of the children in obedience,
labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the exact-
ness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the
unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to
men, and the fear of the gods which every father taught his
children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the
country. "Happy," said he, "is the people ruled by a wise king
in such a manner."

Socialists Want to Regiment People

Fenelon's idyl on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor is
made to say:

All that you see in this wonderful island results from the
laws of Minos. The education which he ordained for the chil-
dren makes their bodies strong and robust. From the very be-
ginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and

labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses
weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure
except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring
glory. . . . Here one punishes three vices that go unpunished
among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and greed. There
is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they

are unknown in Crete No costly furniture, no magnificent

clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted.

Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to
manipulate — doubtless with the best of intentions — the
people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wis-
dom of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of
Salentum.

It is from this sort of philosopy that we receive our first
political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as
an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare
and tend the soil.

A Famous Name and an Evil Idea

Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:

To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all
the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately dividing
up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide
every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable
him to work like the others. These same laws should put every
rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to
work in order to keep or to gain.

Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!

Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy,
yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in

this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that
there be established a census to reduce or fix these differences
in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains
for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens
upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.

Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by
law, by force.

In Greece, there were two kinds of republics. One, Sparta,
was military; the other, Athens, was commercial. In the former,
// was desired that the citizens be idle; in the latter, love of labor
was encouraged.

Note the marvelous genius of these legislators: By debasing
all established customs — by mixing the usual concepts of all
virtues — they knew in advance that the world would admire
their wisdom.

Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta by combining
petty thievery with the soul of justice; by combining the most
complete bondage with the most extreme liberty; by combining
the most atrocious beliefs with the greatest moderation. He
appeared to deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce,
money, and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without the
hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet
because a man was neither son, husband, nor father. Even chas-
tity was no longer considered becoming. By this road, Lycurgus
led Sparta on to greatness and glory.

This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of
Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and
corruption of our modern times. An occasional honest legis-
lator has molded a people in whom integrity appears as nat-
ural as courage in the Spartans.

Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even
though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective — while Lycurgus

had war as his objective — they resemble each other m that
their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome
prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective
peoples into new paths.

The country of Paraguay furnishes us with another exam-
ple [of a people who, for their own good, are molded by their
legislators].*

Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of
commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a
crime against society; it will, however, always be a noble ideal
to govern men in a manner that will make them happier.

Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as
follows: Establish common ownership of property as in the
republic of Plato; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent
foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve
the customs; let the state, instead of the citizens, establish com-
merce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries;
they should satisfy needs instead of desires.

A Frightful Idea

Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may ex-
claim: "Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent!
It's sublime!" As for me, I have the courage of my own
opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that
fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random
selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that
he considers persons, liberties, property — mankind itself

♦Translator's note: What was then known as Paraguay was a much
larger area than it is today. It was colonized by the Jesuits who settled
the Indians into villages, and generally saved them from further bru-
talities by the avid conquerors.

— to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise
their wisdom upon.

The Leader of the Democrats

Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer
on public affairs is the supreme authority of the demo-
crats. And although he bases the social structure upon
the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than
anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total
inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:

If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a
great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow
the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the me-
chanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the work-
man who sets it in motion.

And what part do persons play in all this? They are
merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they
not merely considered to be the raw material of which
the machine is made?

Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator
and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert
and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince
and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer
and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this
writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over
legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in
these imperious terms:

Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the ex-
tremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy
persons nor beggars.

If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for
its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade these
products for the foods that you need. ... On a fertile soil —
if you are short of inhabitants — devote all your attention to
agriculture, because this multipUes people; banish the arts,
because they only serve to depopulate the nation

If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then cover
the sea with merchant ships; you will have a briUiant but short
existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the
people be barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly —
perhaps better — and, most certainly, they will live more
happily.

In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common
to all, every people has its own particular circumstances. And
this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the
circumstances.

This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly — and, more
recently, the Arabs — had religion as their principle objective.
The objective of the Athenians was Hterature; of Carthage and
Tyre, commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and
of Rome, virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown
by what art the legislator should direct his institutions toward
each of these objectives. . . . But suppose that the legislator
mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a principle different
from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the
selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes
liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; some-
times peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion of objec-
tive will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution.
The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is
destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.

But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its
empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need
the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why does he

not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would
turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an
extensive and easily accessible coast, without the inter-
ference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who
might easily be mistaken.

Socialists Want Forced Conformity

Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators, organiz-
ers, directors, legislators, and controllers of society with
a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting
with them:

He who would dare to undertake the political creation of a
people ought to believe that he can, in a manner of speaking,
transform human nature; transform each individual — who, by
himself, is a solitary and perfect whole — into a mere part of
a greater whole from which the individual will henceforth re-
ceive his life and being. Thus the person who would under-
take the political creation of a people should believe in his
ability to alter man's constitution; to strengthen it; to substitute
for the physical and independent existence received from na-
ture, an existence which is partial and moral.* In short, the
would-be creator of political man must remove man's own
forces and endow him with others that are naturally alien to
him.

Poor human nature! What would become of a person's
dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?

♦Translator's note: According to Rousseau, the existence of social man
is partial in the sense that he is henceforth merely a part of society.
Knowing himself as such — and thinking and feeling from the point
of view of the whole — he thereby becomes moral.

Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind

Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind
being molded by the legislator:

The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and
the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties.
He must first consider his locality. A population living on mari-
time shores must have laws designed for navigation. ... If it is
an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans accord-
ing to the nature and fertility of the soil

It is especially in the distribution of property that the genius
of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new
colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be
given to each man to support his family. . . .

On an uncultivated island that you are populating with chil-
dren, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate
along with the development of reason. . . . But when you re-
settle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the
legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain
no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured
and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and
customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second
generation by a general system of public education for the chil-
dren. A prince or a legislator should never establish a colony
without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the
youth. . . .

In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the careful
legislator who desires to purify the customs and manners of the
people. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at
his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. A writer
can only vaguely trace the plan in advance because it is neces-
sarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem
has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are
difficult to foresee and settle in detail.

Legislators Told How to Manage Men

Raynal's instructions to the legislators on how to manage
people may be compared to a professor of agriculture
lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule for
the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He
must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must
do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another
manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes
to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the
manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of
operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan
in advance because it is necessarily subject to the insta-
bility of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms,
complications, and circumstances that are difficult to
foresee and settle in detail."

Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that
this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbi-
trarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They
are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves!
As you have, they too have received from God the fac-
ulty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for
themselves!

A Temporary Dictatorship

Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legisla-
tor. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably
has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be
worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:

Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of
government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil
will be cured. . . . Think less of punishing faults, and more of
rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore
to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have
been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty!
But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary govern-
mental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extra-
ordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time.
The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.

In this manner, Mably continues through twenty
volumes.

Under the influence of teaching like this — which stems
from classical education — there came a time when every-
one wished to place himself above mankind in order to
arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.

Socialists Want Equality of Wealth

Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legis-
lators and mankind:

My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And
before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving
laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these
nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks. . . . At-
tempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has

planted in them Force them to begm to practice the duties

of humanity. . . . Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to
become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point
of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and
gain a virtue.

All people have had laws. But few people have been happy.
Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost
always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the
uniting of families by a common interest.

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing
of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citi-
zens. ... As the laws establish greater equality, they become
proportionately more precious to every citizen. . . . When all
men are equal in wealth and dignity — and when the laws leave
no hope of disturbing this equality — how can men then be
agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy,
hatred, or jealousy?

What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should
enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had
laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality.

The Error of the Socialist Writers

Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded
as inert matter, ready to receive everything — form, face,
energy, movement, life — from a great prince or a great
legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nour-
ished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents
everywhere — in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome — the spec-
tacle of a few men molding mankind according to their
whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud. But
this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It
proves only that since men and society are capable of
improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error,
ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be
greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted
above were not in error when they found ancient institu-

tions to be such, but they were in error when they offered
them for the admiration and imitation of future genera-
tions. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for
granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of
the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not
understand that knowledge appears and grows with the
passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of
knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society re-
gains possession of itself.

What Is Liberty?

Actually, what is the pohtical struggle that we witness?
It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty.
And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart
beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of
all liberties — liberty of conscience, of education, of asso-
ciation, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short,
is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full
use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other
persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of
all despotism — including, of course, legal despotism?
Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its
rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual
to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human
race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in
France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — learned
from the teachings of antiquity — that our writers on pub-
lic affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves

above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regu-
late it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous
men who put themselves at its head are filled with the
spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They
think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic
tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau,
they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke
of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their
own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the
old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still
other artificial arrangements, always starting from the
same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and poH-
ticians during that period:

saint-just: The legislator commands the future. It is for
him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men
what he wills them to be.

ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the
physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for
which the commonwealth has come into being.

BiLLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to
liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous
action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old
customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluou %
wants, and to destroy ingrained vices. . . . Citizens, the inflex-
ible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the

Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon
plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole
science of government.

LE pelletier: Considering the extent of human degrada-
tion, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regener-
ation and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new
people.

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw
material. It is not for them to will their own improve-
ment; they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just,
only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are
merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. Accord-
ing to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the
legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the com-
monwealth has come into being. Once this is determined,
the government has only to direct the physical and moral
forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the
inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely pas-
sive. And according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes,
the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and
no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He
even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of
one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordi-
nary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably
recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort,"
he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable
powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens

needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been
forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and
the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country
we desire to substitute moraUty for selfishness, honesty for
honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire
of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for con-
tempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for
vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good
companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter,
the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the great-
ness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong,
happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people;
in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a
repubhc for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind
does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arro-
gance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray
for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does
he expect such a result from a well-ordered government.
No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of
terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is
extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he
aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to
guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robes-
pierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for
the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting

down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictator-
ship in order that he may use terror to force upon the
country his own principles of morality. He says that this
act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new
constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of
using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor,
customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good
companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty.
Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these
miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the
law to reign again.*

The Indirect Approach to Despotism

Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the
legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not
desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no,
they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct
action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism,
this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to
make the laws.

To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France,
I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably,
Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon — plus long extracts from
Bossuet and Montesquieu — but also the entire proceedings

*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks
thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: "Ah, you
miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who
judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything!
Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient
enough."

of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer
the reader to them.

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind

It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea
should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced
it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napo-
leon considered all Europe to be material for his experi-
ments. But, in due course, this material reacted against
him.

At St. Helena, Napoleon — greatly disillusioned —
seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recog-
nizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless,
this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his
son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread
morality, education, and happiness."

After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same
opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and
Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis
Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan,
society receives its momentum from power."

Now consider this: The impulse behind this momen-
tum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his
plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred
to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive
its momentum from Louis Blanc.

Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or
to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept
or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is

not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the
matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and
thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of
the law:

In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing
else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must
proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society
on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this
incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural work-
ings of the established mechanism.

But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis
Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to hap-
piness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there
of its own choice? (Because society does not know what
it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it?
(Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this
power? (Why, the inventor of the machine — in this in-
stance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of pas-
sive mankind, and the power of the law being used by
a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty?
(Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right;
it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop
his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection
of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and
its consequences are diflScult to estimate. For once it is agreed
that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use
and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person
has a claim on society for such education as will permit him
to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a
claim on society for tools of production, without which hu-
man activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action
can society give to every person the necessary education and
the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the
state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power
consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools
of production.) Who is to give the education and the
tools of production? (Society, which owes them to every-
one.) By what action is society to give tools of produc-
tion to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action
of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also
notice the direction in which this is taking us.

The Doctrine of the Democrats

The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will
probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based
on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind,
the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the
legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of
those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social.
So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith

in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard
mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this
contrast in greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political
rights are under discussion? How does he regard the peo-
ple when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is
claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they
are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always
right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too
universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not
to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and
capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the
people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of
enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept
on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort
and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their
intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they
not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know
what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man
who would be so bold as to set himself above the people,
and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and
should be jree. They desire to manage their own affairs,
and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then
indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical
change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness,
and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipo-
tence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel,
and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour

of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea:
The people who, during the election, were so wise, so
moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever;
or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead down-
ward into degradation.

The Socialist Concept of Liberty

But ought not the people be given a Httle liberty?

But Mr. Considerant has assured us that liberty leads
inevitably to monopoly!

We understand that liberty means competition. But
according to Mr. Louis Blanc, competition is a system
that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people.
It is for this reason that free people are ruined and ex-
terminated in proportion to their degree of freedom.
(Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe the results of
competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, Eng-
land, and the United States.)

Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads
to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs
us that low prices lead to high prices; that competition
drives production to destructive activity; that competition
drains away the sources of purchasing power; that com-
petition forces an increase in production while, at the
same time, it forces a decrease in consumption. From
this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of
not consuming; that liberty means oppression and mad-
ness among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc abso-
lutely must attend to it.

Socialists Fear All Liberties

Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people
to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permit-
ted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to
become atheists.)

Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay
professors to teach their children immorality and false-
hoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education
were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national,
and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the
Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism
over education, our children now have the good fortune
to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)

Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean compe-
tition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed,
ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)

Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows — and
the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and
over again — that freedom of trade ruins every person
who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress
freedom of trade in order to prosper.)

Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according
to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary associa-
tion are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose
of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association pre-
cisely in order to force people to associate together in
true liberty. )

Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats
cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they

believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward
every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course,
the legislators must make plans for the people in order
to save them from themselves.

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging ques-
tion: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as
ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right
of these same people to vote defended with such pas-
sionate insistence?

The Supeiman Idea

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another
question which I have often asked them and which, so
far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural
tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to
permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies
of these organizers are always good? Do not the legisla-
tors and their appointed agents also belong to the human
race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made
of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers
maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes head-
long to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of
the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop
this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Ap-
parently, then, the legislators and the organizers have
received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that
place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them
show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep.
Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are
naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are
fully justified in demanding from the legislators and
organizers proof of this natural superiority.

The Socialists Reject Free Choice

Please understand that I do not dispute their right to
invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate
them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own ex-
pense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose
these plans upon us by law — by force — and to compel
us to pay for them with our taxes.

I do not insist that the supporters of these various so-
cial schools of thought — the Proudhonists, the Cabetists,
the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists
— renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they
renounce this one idea that they have in common: They
need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce
to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their
free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of moral-
ity, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we
be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves;
that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indi-
rectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests
or repugnant to our consciences.

But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and
to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans.

In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire
also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is
infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if per-
sons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why
all this talk about universal suffrage?

The Cause of French Reyolutions

This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically,
reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen
have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights
— K)r, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this
fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the
most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed
upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people
in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one
where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And
under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this
should be the case.

And this will remain the case so long as our politicians
continue to accept this idea that has been so well ex-
pressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: "Society receives its momen-
tum from power." This will remain the case so long as
human beings with feelings continue to remain passive;
so long as they consider themselves incapable of better-
ing their prosperity and happiness by their own intelli-
gence and their own energy; so long as they expect every-
thing from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that
their relationship to the state is the same as that of the
sheep to the shepherd.

The Enorraous Power of Goyemment

As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the respon-
sibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad
fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality,
virtue and vice — all then depend upon political adminis-
tration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes
everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible
for everything.

If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to
our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government
must bear the blame. For are not our persons and prop-
erty now at the disposal of government? Is not the law
omnipotent?

In creating a monopoly of education, the government
must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who
have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these
hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?

In regulating industry, the government has contracted
to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive in-
dustry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose
fault is it?

In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with
tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade
prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of pros-
perity, whose fault is it?

In giving the maritime industries protection in ex-
change for their hberty, the government undertakes to
make them profitable; and if they become a burden to
the taxpayers, whose fault is it?

Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which
the government does not voluntarily make itself respon-
sible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases
the threat of another revolution in France?

And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefi-
nitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility
of government.

But if the government undertakes to control and to
raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government under-
takes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot
do it; if the government undertakes to support all unem-
ployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government un-
dertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and
cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say
escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state
considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to
enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the
soul of the people" — and if the government cannot do all
of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after
every government failure — which, alas! is more than
probable — there will be an equally inevitable revolution?

Politics and Economics

[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed
in the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of
economics and of politics — political economy.*]

♦Translator's note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and sev-
eral articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three
sentences of the following paragraph.

A science of economics must be developed before a
science of politics can be logically formulated. Essen-
tially, economics is the science of determining whether
the interests of human beings are harmonious or antago-
nistic. This must be known before a science of politics
can be formulated to determine the proper functions of
government.

Immediately following the development of a science of
economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation
of a science of politics, this all-important question must
be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is
its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just
powers of the legislator stop?

I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force
organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law
is justice.

Proper Legislative Functions

It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over
our persons and property. The existence of persons and
property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his
function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our
consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our
opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleas-
ures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise
of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfer-
ing with the free exercise of these same rights by any
other person.

Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its
lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force
is necessary. This is justice.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful
self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force
— ^which is only the organized combination of the indi-
vidual forces — may lawfully be used for the same pur-
pose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other
purpose.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right
of self-defense which existed before law was formalized.
Law is justice.

Law and Charity Are Not the Same

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and
plunder them of their property, even though the law may
be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to pro-
tect persons and property.

Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be
philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppress-
ing persons and plundering them of their property; this
would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having
an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts
in any manner except to protect them, its actions then
necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right
to own property.

The law is justice — simple and clear, precise and
bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp
it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchange-

able. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.
If you exceed this proper limit — if you attempt to
make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philan-
thropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — ^you will then be
lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncer-
tainty, in a forced Utopia or, even worse, in a multitude
of Utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it
upon you. This is true because fraternity and philan-
thropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once
started, where will you stop? And where will the law
stop itself?

The High Road to Communism

Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to
some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the
law control the consumers to benefit the producers,

Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor
groups; he would use the law to secure for them a guar-
anteed minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other
necessities of life.

Mr. Louis Blanc would say — and with reason — that
these minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of
complete fraternity; he would say that the law should
give tools of production and free education to all working
people.

Another person would observe that this arrangement
would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that
the law should give to everyone — even in the most inacces-
sible hamlet — luxury, literature, and art.

All of these proposals are the high road to commu-
nism; legislation will then be — in fact, it already is — the
battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.

The Basis for Stable Government

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring
government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say
how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of
the slightest uprising could arise against a government
whose organized force was confined only to suppressing
injustice.

Under such a regime, there would be the most pros-
perity— and it would be the most equally distributed. As
for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no
one would even think of accusing the government for
them. This is true because, if the force of government
were limited to suppressing injustice, then government
would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now inno-
cent of changes in the temperature.

As proof of this statement, consider this question:
Have the people ever been known to rise against the
Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order
to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production,
favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone
knows perfectly well that such matters are not within
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of
the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper
functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters
are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity
— proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law;
that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes
and all social inequalities — then the door is open to an
endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and
revolutions.

Justice Means Equal Rights

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law
could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are
not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to
conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de
Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a
moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these
gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to sup-
pose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination
to dream up a Utopia also? Should the law choose one
fantasy among many, and put the organized force of
government at its service only?

Law is justice. And let it not be said — as it continually
is said — that under this concept, the law would be athe-
istic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make
mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion,
worthy only of those worshippers of government who
believe that the law is mankind.

Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government be-
lieve that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow
that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive
no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted

to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties,
we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the
law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion,
or systems of association, or methods of education, or
regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for
charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge
into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed?
If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer rec-
ognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow
that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to
help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate
brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to
improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?

The Path to Dignity and Progress

Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice — under
the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety,
stability, and responsibility — that every person will attain
his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only
under this law of justice that mankind will achieve —
slowly, no doubt, but certainly — God's design for the
orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.

It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for what-
ever the question under discussion — whether religious,
philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns
prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress,
responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital,
wages, taxes, population, finance, or government — at
whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my re-

searches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The
solution to the problems of human relationships is to be
found in liberty.

Proof of an Idea

And does not experience prove this? Look at the en-
tire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful,
the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people
are found in the countries where the law least interferes
with private affairs; where government is least felt; where
the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion
the greatest influence; where administrative powers are
fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most
nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and
the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most
actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently,
where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings
are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and
associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital,
and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements;
where mankind most nearly follows its own natural in-
clinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly
in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest,
most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most
nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not per-
fect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions
of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to
be used for nothing except the administration of univer-
sal justice.

The Desire to Rule over Others

This must be said: There are too many "great" men in
the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of
the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too
many persons place themselves above mankind; they
make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and rul-
ing it.

Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this
very thing."

True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely
different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reform-
ers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to
leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Van-
causon looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the
physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I
accept people as they are. I desire only to study and
admire.

My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated
by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one
day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had
just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians,
and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — sur-
rounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the
perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils."
Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I
draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A tliird said:
"He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes."
Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend

his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless
I flatten his skull."

"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is weU
done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given
organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow
strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."

Let Us Now Try Liberty

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to
accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social
form as well as a human form. And these social organs
of persons are so constituted that they will develop them-
selves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away,
then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings,
chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial
systems! Away with the whims of governmental admin-
istrators, their socialized projects, their centralization,
their tariffs, their government schools, their state reli-
gions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regu-
lations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation,
and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so
futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they
finally end where they should have begun: May they
reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an ac-
knowledgment of faith in God and His works.

THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION

is a non-profit research and educational institution. It is re-
sponsible to no outside person or group — either in govern-
ment, business, labor, or agriculture. Its sole purpose is a
search for truth in economics, political science, and related
subjects. Further information, including a list of publica-
tions, will be sent on request.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Law"

See other formats